Today, the Justice Department announced it has charged more than 500 domestic violence cases involving firearms during Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. A department priority since 2019 when Attorney General William P. Barr created the Department of Justice’s first ever-Domestic Violence Working Group, these charges are the result of the critical law enforcement partnership between U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, led by Acting Director Regina Lombardo, who has made domestic violence firearms-related investigations a priority.
“Keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminal offenders is one of the Department of Justice’s top priorities,” said Attorney General Barr. “This is especially important when it comes to individuals with prior domestic violence convictions. The statistics are clear that when domestic violence offenders have access to guns, their partners and their families are at much greater risk of falling victim to gun violence. In fact, in some communities across America, roughly half of the homicides are related to domestic violence. The Department of Justice is committed to keeping guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from having them, and we will continue investigating and prosecuting all domestic violence firearms related crimes.”
“According to the CDC, data suggests that about one in six homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner,” said ATF Acting Director Lombardo. “Nearly half of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by a current or former male intimate partner. ATF is committed to aggressively pursuing prohibited possession of firearms due to domestic violence convictions and certain protective orders. It is another way we prevent violent gun crime within our communities.”
Under federal law, individuals with domestic violence misdemeanor and felony convictions, as well as individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders, are prohibited from possessing firearms. The data shows that offenders with domestic violence in their past pose a high risk of homicide. In fact, domestic violence abusers with a gun in the home are five times more likely to kill their partners.
The Working Group, chaired by U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox, of the Northern District of Texas, disseminates legal guidance on keeping guns out of the hands of domestic violence abusers using three federal statutes:
- 18 USC § 922 (g)(1), felon in possession of a firearm
- 18 USC § 922 (g)(9), possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (misdemeanor crime of domestic violence)
- 18 USC § 922 (g)(8), possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence protective order
Based on the Working Group’s guidance, in FY 2020, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices nationwide brought 337 domestic violence felon-in-possession charges, 54 possession while subject to a protective order charges, and 142 possession by a prohibited person charges.
For more information on domestic violence or to get help, visit the National Domestic Violence Hotline website or call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).
- ‘All too frequent tragedies demand action to improve judicial security,’ Judge tells Judicial ConferenceBy Sam NewsIn U.S CourtsSeptember 15, 2020“Four federal judges and three family members have been killed since 1979. These horrific tragedies must stop,” Judge David W. McKeague told the Judicial Conference of the United States today.[Read More…]
- Artificial Intelligence: An Accountability Framework for Federal Agencies and Other EntitiesBy Sam NewsJuly 1, 2021What GAO Found To help managers ensure accountability and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in government programs and processes, GAO developed an AI accountability framework. This framework is organized around four complementary principles, which address governance, data, performance, and monitoring. For each principle, the framework describes key practices for federal agencies and other entities that are considering, selecting, and implementing AI systems. Each practice includes a set of questions for entities, auditors, and third-party assessors to consider, as well as procedures for auditors and third- party assessors. Why GAO Developed This Framework AI is a transformative technology with applications in medicine, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, defense, and many other areas. It also holds substantial promise for improving government operations. Federal guidance has focused on ensuring AI is responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable. Third-party assessments and audits are important to achieving these goals. However, AI systems pose unique challenges to such oversight because their inputs and operations are not always visible. GAO's objective was to identify key practices to help ensure accountability and responsible AI use by federal agencies and other entities involved in the design, development, deployment, and continuous monitoring of AI systems. To develop this framework, GAO convened a Comptroller General Forum with AI experts from across the federal government, industry, and nonprofit sectors. It also conducted an extensive literature review and obtained independent validation of key practices from program officials and subject matter experts. In addition, GAO interviewed AI subject matter experts representing industry, state audit associations, nonprofit entities, and other organizations, as well as officials from federal agencies and Offices of Inspector General. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Accountability Framework For more information, contact Taka Ariga at (202) 512-6888 or ArigaT@gao.gov.[Read More…]
- Tennessee Emergency Medical Doctor Sentenced to Prison for Unlawfully Distributing Controlled SubstancesBy Sam NewsNovember 12, 2020A Tennessee emergency medical doctor was sentenced today to serve 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his role in unlawfully distributing controlled substances.[Read More…]
- Northern Alabama Doctor and Practice Manager Convicted for Conspiring to Unlawfully Distribute OpioidsBy Sam NewsDecember 16, 2020A Northern Alabama doctor and her husband, who also served as her practice manager, pleaded guilty today for their roles in unlawfully distributing opioids and other controlled substances while the doctor was absent from the clinic.[Read More…]
- Information Technology: DOD Software Development Approaches and Cybersecurity Practices May Impact Cost and ScheduleBy Sam NewsDecember 23, 2020GAO reported in June 2020 that, of the 15 major Department of Defense (DOD) information technology (IT) programs selected for review, 11 had decreased their cost estimates as of December 2019. The decreases in cost estimates ranged from a .03 percent decrease to a 33.8 percent decrease. In contrast, the remaining four programs experienced increases in their life-cycle cost estimates—--two with increases exceeding 20 percent. Program officials reported several reasons for the increases, including testing delays and development challenges. Ten of the 15 programs had schedule delays when compared to their original acquisition program baselines. Schedule delays ranged from a delay of 1 month to a delay of 5 years. Program officials reported a variety of reasons for significant delays (delays of over 1 year) in their planned schedules, including cyber and performance issues. Regarding software development, officials from the 15 selected major IT programs that GAO reviewed reported using software development approaches that may help to limit risks to cost and schedule outcomes. For example, 10 of the 15 programs reported using commercial off-the-shelf software, which is consistent with DOD guidance to use this software to the extent practicable. Such software can help reduce software development time, allow for faster delivery, and lower life-cycle costs. In addition, 14 of the 15 programs reported using an iterative software development approach which, according to leading practices, may help reduce cost growth and deliver better results to the customer. However, programs also reported using an older approach to software development, known as waterfall, which could introduce risk for program cost growth because of its linear and sequential phases of development that may be implemented over a longer period of time. Specifically, two programs reported using a waterfall approach in conjunction with an iterative approach, while one was solely using a waterfall approach. With respect to cybersecurity, programs reported mixed implementation of specific practices, contributing to program risks that might impact cost and schedule outcomes. For example, all 15 programs reported developing cybersecurity strategies, which are intended to help ensure that programs are planning for and documenting cybersecurity risk management efforts. In contrast, only eight of the 15 programs reported conducting cybersecurity vulnerability assessments—systematic examinations of an information system or product intended to, among other things, determine the adequacy of security measures and identify security deficiencies. These eight programs experienced fewer increases in planned program costs and fewer schedule delays relative to the programs that did not report using cybersecurity vulnerability assessments. For fiscal year 2020, DOD requested approximately $36.1 billion for IT investments. Those investments included major IT programs, which are intended to help the department sustain key operations. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to assess selected IT programs annually through March 2023. GAO's objectives for this review were to, among other things, (1) describe the extent to which selected major IT programs have changed their planned costs and schedules since the programs' initial baselines; and (2) describe what selected software development and cybersecurity risks or challenges, if any, may impact major IT programs' acquisition outcomes. GAO selected programs based on DOD's list of major IT programs, as of April 10, 2019. From this list, GAO identified 15 major IT programs that had established an initial acquisition program baseline and that were not fully deployed by December 31, 2019. GAO compared the 15 programs' initial cost and schedule baselines to current acquisition program estimates. In addition, GAO aggregated DOD program office responses to a GAO questionnaire about software development approaches and cybersecurity practices used by the 15 programs. GAO compared this information to leading practices to identify risks and challenges affecting cost, schedule, and performance outcomes. This report is a public version of a “for official use only” report issued in June 2020. For more information, contact Kevin Walsh at (202) 512-6151 or firstname.lastname@example.org.[Read More…]
- Joint Statement on the Situation in LibyaBy Sam NewsJanuary 21, 2021Office of the [Read More…]
- Venezuela National DayBy Sam NewsJuly 5, 2021
- Technology Assessment Design HandbookBy Sam NewsFebruary 18, 2021The Technology Assessment (TA) Design Handbook identifies tools and approaches GAO staff and others can consider in the design of robust and rigorous technology assessments. The handbook underscores the importance of TA design (Chapter 1), outlines the process of designing TAs (Chapter 2), and describes approaches for mitigating select TA design and implementation challenges (Chapter 3). While the primary audience of this handbook is GAO staff, other organizations may also find portions of this handbook useful as they consider or conduct TAs. This is an update to the handbook published in December 2019, based on the experiences of GAO teams and a review of relevant literature and comments submitted by external experts and the public between December 2019 and December 2020. The handbook identifies three general design stages, as shown in the figure below. The handbook also highlights seven cross-cutting considerations for designing TAs: the iterative nature of TA design, congressional and policymakers' interests, resources, independence, engaging internal and external stakeholders, potential challenges, and communication strategy. In addition, the handbook provides a high-level process for developing policy options, as a tool for analyzing and articulating a range of possible actions a policymaker could consider that may enhance the benefits or mitigate the challenges of a technology. Steps in developing policy options include, as applicable: determining the potential policy objective; gathering evidence; identifying possible policy options and the relevant dimensions along which to analyze them; analyzing policy options; and presenting the results of the analysis. Summary of Key Stages of Technology Assessment Design We found that GAO TAs can use a variety of design approaches and methods. The handbook includes TA design and methodology examples, along with example objectives commonly found in GAO TAs, such as: describe a technology, assess opportunities and challenges of a technology, and assess policy implications or options. For example, some GAO TAs include an objective related to describing the status and feasibility of a technology, which GAO teams have addressed by using methodologies such as expert panels, interviews, literature and document reviews, site visits, and determining the technology readiness level. Also included in the handbook are examples of TA design and implementation challenges, along with possible mitigation strategies. We identified four general categories of challenges: (1) ensuring that the design and implementation of TAs result in useful products for Congress and other policymakers; (2) determining the policy objective and measuring potential effects; (3) researching and communicating complicated issues; and (4) engaging relevant stakeholders. For example, allowing sufficient time for writing, review, and any needed revisions is one potential mitigation strategy that could help teams write simply and clearly about technical subjects and ensure that the design and implementation of TAs result in useful products for Congress and other policymakers. In 2019, GAO created the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics team to expand its work on cutting-edge science and technology issues, and to provide oversight, insight, and foresight for science and technology. TAs can be used to strengthen decision-making, enhance knowledge and awareness, and provide early insights into the potential effects of technology. Systematically designing a TA can enhance its quality, credibility, and usefulness; ensure independence of the analysis; and ensure effective use of resources. Under Comptroller General Authority, we developed this handbook by generally following the format of the 2012 GAO methodology transfer paper, Designing Evaluations. Below is a summary of the approach we used to affirm and document TA design steps and considerations for this handbook. Reviewed select GAO documents, including Designing Evaluations (GAO-12-208G), published GAO TAs, select GAO products using policy analysis approaches to present policy options, and other GAO reports Reviewed select Office of Technology Assessment reports Reviewed select Congressional Research Service reports Reviewed select English-language literature regarding TAs and related to development and analysis of policy options Consulted with external experts and performed outreach, including holding an expert meeting to gather input on TA design, soliciting comments from external experts who contributed to GAO TAs published since 2015, and soliciting comments from the public Reviewed experiences of GAO teams that have successfully assessed and incorporated policy options into GAO products and TA design, including challenges to TA design and implementation and possible solutions GAO is not making any recommendations. For more information, contact Timothy M. Persons or Karen L. Howard at (202) 512-6888 or email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org.[Read More…]
- Secretary Pompeo’s Call with Bolivian President-elect ArceBy Sam NewsNovember 4, 2020Office of the [Read More…]
- International Law Enforcement Operation Targeting Opioid Traffickers on the Darknet Results in 150 Arrests Worldwide and the Seizure of Weapons, Drugs, and over $31 MillionBy Sam NewsOctober 26, 2021Today, the Department of Justice, through the Joint Criminal Opioid and Darknet Enforcement (JCODE) team joined Europol to announce the results of Operation Dark HunTor, a coordinated international effort on three continents to disrupt opioid trafficking on the Darknet. The operation, which was conducted across the United States, Australia, and Europe, was a result of the continued partnership between JCODE and foreign law enforcement against the illegal sale of drugs and other illicit goods and services. Operation Dark HunTor builds on the success of last year’s Operation DisrupTor and the coordinated law enforcement takedown earlier this year of DarkMarket, the world’s then-largest illegal marketplace on the Darknet. At the time, German authorities arrested the marketplace’s alleged operator and seized the site’s infrastructure, providing investigators across the world with a trove of evidence. Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) and JCODE have since been compiling intelligence packages to identify key targets.[Read More…]
- Substance Use Disorder: Medicaid Coverage of Peer Support Services for AdultsBy Sam NewsAugust 6, 2020Substance use disorders (SUD)—the recurrent use of alcohol or illicit drugs causing significant impairment—affected about 19.3 million adults in the United States in 2018, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. State Medicaid programs have the option to cover services offered by peer providers—individuals who use their own lived experience recovering from SUD to support others in recovery. GAO's review of Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission data found that, in 2018, 37 states covered peer support services for adults with SUDs in their Medicaid programs. Medicaid Coverage of Peer Support Services for Adults with Substance Use Disorders, 2018 Officials from the three states GAO reviewed—Colorado, Missouri, and Oregon—reported that their Medicaid programs offered peer support services as a complement, rather than as an alternative, to clinical treatment for SUD. Missouri officials said that peer providers did not maintain separate caseloads and were part of treatment teams, working in conjunction with doctors and other clinical staff. Similarly, officials in Colorado and Oregon said peer support services were only offered as part of a treatment plan. State officials reported that peer support services could be offered as an alternative to clinical treatment outside of Medicaid using state or grant funding. SUD treatment can help individuals reduce or stop substance use and improve their quality of life. In 2007, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recognized that peer providers could be an important component of effective SUD treatment, and provided guidance to states on how to cover peer support services in their Medicaid programs. However, states have flexibility in how they design and implement their Medicaid programs, and coverage for peer support services is an optional benefit. The Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act included a provision for GAO to report on peer support services under Medicaid. This report describes, among other objectives, the extent to which state Medicaid programs covered peer support services for adult beneficiaries with SUDs nationwide, and how selected state Medicaid programs offered peer support services for adult beneficiaries with SUDs. GAO obtained state-by-state data from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission on 2018 Medicaid coverage of peer support services. GAO also reviewed information and interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable sample of three states, which GAO selected for a number of reasons, including to obtain variation in delivery systems used. The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Carolyn L. Yocom at (202) 512-7114 or email@example.com.[Read More…]
- Federal Court Orders Miami-Area Tax Preparer to Pay Contempt Sanction for Violating Permanent InjunctionBy Sam NewsSeptember 29, 2021A federal court in the Southern District of Florida has ordered a Miami-area tax preparer to pay a $403,969.70 contempt sanction for violating a permanent injunction that barred her from preparing, filing or assisting in the preparation or filing of federal tax returns for others.[Read More…]
- Wisconsin-Based Nonprofit To Pay $1.9 Million To Settle Allegations Of False Claims And Kickbacks On Federal Contracts For Blind WorkersBy Sam NewsSeptember 30, 2020Industries for the Blind and Visually Impaired Inc. (IBI) has agreed to pay the United States $1,938,684.09 to resolve allegations that IBI violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Act in connection with certain federal contracts set aside to employ blind workers, the Justice Department announced today.[Read More…]
- Former police officer sentenced for using hidden camera to obtain child pornographyBy Sam NewsIn Justice NewsOctober 7, 2021A 32-year-old former [Read More…]
- Djibouti National DayBy Sam NewsJune 27, 2021
- U.S.-China Trade: USTR Should Fully Document Internal Procedures for Making Tariff Exclusion and Extension DecisionsBy Sam NewsJuly 29, 2021What GAO Found The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) developed a process in July 2018 to review tariff exclusion requests for some imported products from China and later developed a process to extend these exclusions. From 2018 to 2020, U.S. stakeholders submitted about 53,000 exclusion requests to USTR for specific products covered by the tariffs. USTR's process consisted of a public comment period to submit requests, an internal review, an interagency assessment, and the decision publication. USTR documented some procedures for reviewing exclusion requests. However, it did not fully document all of its internal procedures, including roles and responsibilities for each step in its review process. GAO reviewed selected exclusion case files and found inconsistencies in the agency's reviews. For example, USTR did not document how reviewers should consider multiple requests from the same company, and GAO's case file review found USTR performed these steps inconsistently. Another case file lacked documentation to explain USTR's final decision because the agency's procedures did not specify whether such documentation was required. Federal internal control standards state that agencies should document their procedures to ensure they conduct them consistently and effectively, and to retain knowledge. Without fully documented internal procedures, USTR lacks reasonable assurance it conducted its reviews consistently. Moreover, documenting them will help USTR to administer any future exclusions and extensions. USTR evaluated each exclusion request on a case-by-case basis using several factors, including product availability outside of China and the potential economic harm of the tariffs. According to USTR officials, no one factor was essential to grant or deny a request. For example, USTR might grant a request that demonstrated the tariffs would cause severe economic harm even when the requested product was available outside of China. USTR denied about 46,000 requests (87 percent), primarily for the failure to show that the tariffs would cause severe economic harm to the requesters or other U.S. interests (see figure). Further, USTR did not extend 75 percent of the tariff exclusions it had granted. USTR's Primary Reasons for Denying Exclusion Requests for Section 301 Tariffs on Products from China, 2018-2020 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Why GAO Did This Study In July 2018, USTR placed tariffs on certain products from China in response to an investigation that found certain trade acts, policies, and practices of China were unreasonable or discriminatory, and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. As of December 2020, the U.S. imposed tariffs on roughly $460 billion worth of Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Because these tariffs could harm U.S. workers and manufacturers that rely on these imports, USTR developed a process to exclude some products from these additional tariffs. U.S. businesses and members of Congress have raised questions about the transparency and fairness of USTR's administration of this process. GAO was asked to review USTR's tariff exclusion program. This report (1) examines the processes USTR used to review Section 301 tariff exclusion requests and extensions and (2) describes how USTR evaluated those tariff exclusion requests and extensions, and the outcomes of its decisions. GAO analyzed USTR's public and internal documents relating to the exclusion and extension processes, including 16 randomly selected nongeneralizable case files, and data from USTR and the U.S. Census Bureau. GAO also interviewed agency officials.[Read More…]
- Man from the Congo found guilty in smuggling attemptBy Sam NewsIn Justice NewsMay 18, 2021A federal jury has [Read More…]
- COVID-19: Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve Future Use of Defense Production Act AuthoritiesBy Sam NewsDecember 16, 2021What GAO Found Federal agencies used the Defense Production Act (DPA) and other actions over 100 times to help address COVID-19 medical supply needs through September 2021. Agencies used DPA authorities to 1) prioritize contracts so those orders can get preference over others, (2) fund projects to expand domestic production of supplies, and (3) enter into partnerships with private companies (see figure). Defense Production Act and Other Actions, March 2020-September 2021 aOther actions refer to production expansion projects not executed under DPA Title III authority. Representatives from companies that received DPA awards generally stated that the use of the DPA gave them timely access to raw materials and supplies and helped them expand production faster than they could have on their own. GAO previously reported that federal agencies faced challenges using DPA authorities. Agencies have taken some steps to address these obstacles as well as one of two recommendations GAO made. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which had limited DPA experience prior to COVID-19, reported establishing offices to review DPA priority rating requests and to manage industrial base expansion efforts. However, it has not developed a plan for using DPA and other actions to address future medical supply needs as GAO recommended. The Department of Defense, which has been providing significant contracting support to HHS, documented procedures to facilitate the timely transfer of funds between the two agencies and established a permanent office in October 2020 to support interagency needs. The Office of Management and Budget established a web page to collect and publish data on DPA priority ratings, which addressed a prior GAO recommendation concerning transparent reporting of these DPA actions. Additional DPA and other actions are expected through 2025 as agencies use $10 billion appropriated in the American Rescue Plan Act for medical supply investments and implement a September 2021 national strategy to strengthen the domestic medical industrial base. GAO plans to monitor agencies' efforts. Why GAO Did This Study COVID-19 put the U.S. health care system under severe strain, affecting federal agencies' ability to buy and maintain critical medical supplies to help treat patients and protect health care workers. The federal government's COVID-19 response included a significant use of DPA authorities, as well as other actions focused on expanding domestic production of medical supplies to help stabilize the medical supply chain. The CARES Act and other supplemental appropriations provided at least $11 billion for DPA purchases and other actions related to COVID-19 or other public health emergencies through September 2025. The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor funds provided for the COVID-19 pandemic. This report summarizes federal agencies' use of the DPA to respond to COVID-19 and industry perspectives, as well as implementation challenges and steps agencies have taken to address these challenges. This report summarizes information contained in reports issued in June, September, and November 2020, and January, March, April and July 2021, and provides data updates through September 2021.[Read More…]
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks at the Workforce Management into Tech Jobs RoundtableBy Sam NewsSeptember 29, 2021
- Technology Modernization Fund: Implementation of Recommendations Can Improve Fee Collection and Proposal Cost EstimatesBy Sam NewsDecember 10, 2021What GAO Found The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) provides awards to agencies to, among other things, modernize aging federal information systems. Of the initial $175 million that Congress appropriated for TMF, the Technology Modernization Board had approved 11 projects totaling about $89 million (see table), as of August 2021. Agency proposals were to include estimates of any project-related savings; agencies could use these savings to satisfy the requirement that they reimburse the TMF for any transfers within 5 years. For the seven projects approved in 2018 and 2019, two have reported generating cost savings but those savings are not documented. For the remaining five projects, two no longer plan on savings, two plan on savings starting in 1 to 3 years, and one does not know when savings will begin. Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) Project Awards, as of August 31, 2021 (in dollars) Agency and TMF project Total award amount Date of award Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) Farmers.Gov Portal 4,000,000 June 7, 2018 Department of Energy Enterprise Cloud Email 3,743,702 June 7, 2018 Department of Housing and Urban Development Unisys Migration 13,850,013 June 7, 2018 Agriculture Infrastructure Optimization 500,000 October 29, 2018 Department of Labor (Labor) Visa Application Transformation 3,500,000 October 29, 2018 General Services Administration (GSA) Application Modernization 9,816,833 October 29, 2018 GSA NewPay 16,986,021 February 11, 2019 Agriculture Specialty Crops Systems Modernization 8,000,000 October 21, 2019 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge and Case Management System Modernization 4,000,000 October 21, 2019 U.S. Customs Border and Protection Automated Commercial Environment Collections Module 15,000,000 July 27, 2020 Labor Data Modernization 9,600,000 March 21, 2021 Total 88,996,569 Source: GAO analysis of agency TMF project documentation as of August 31, 2021. | GAO-22-105117 In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 appropriated an additional $1 billion to the TMF. In May 2021, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided updated TMF guidance to agencies regarding this $1 billion. Among other things, the guidance (1) prioritizes projects that cut across agencies and address immediate cybersecurity gaps, and (2) allows agencies to apply for a partial or minimal reimbursement of the TMF funds provided (partial is agencies repaying 25 to 100 percent of the award while minimal is greater than zero but less than 25 percent). On September 30, 2021, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced the approval of seven new projects with awards totaling at least $311 million (one of the seven projects is classified; no award figure is publicly available). In deciding on these seven, the Technology Modernization Board received 113 project proposals requesting a total of more than $2.3 billion. Regarding TMF operating costs and fees collected to offset those costs, as of August 2021, GSA had received fee payments totaling about $810,000, or about 29 percent of its operating expenses of $2.8 million (see table below). Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) Program Management Office Operating Expenses and Fee Collection, as of August 31, 2021 (in dollars) Fiscal year Operating expenses Fee collection 2018 408,662 0 2019 851,958 33,165 2020 835,725 245,096 2021a 712,170 530,628 Total 2,808,515 808,889 Source: GAO analysis of TMF Program Management Office and TMF project documentation, | GAO-22-105117 a2021 operating expenses and fee collection are for the first 11 months of fiscal year 2021 (Oct-Sept). A key reason for this shortfall is that six of the seven initially approved projects narrowed their scopes. This led to reduced award amounts transferred to agencies, which in turn resulted in about a $1.12 million reduction in anticipated fees. Relatedly, OMB and GSA have not yet implemented GAO's prior recommendation to develop and implement a plan to fully recover operating expenses with fee collection. Doing so would provide greater assurance that fees collected would be sufficient to offset operating costs. OMB funding guidelines require projects to include a reliable estimate of any project-related savings. However, most of the TMF projects' reported savings estimates derived from cost estimates continue to be unreliable. Specifically, three of the four projects reviewed did not fully incorporate best practices for a reliable cost estimate, as defined in OMB Circular A-11 (which references GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide ) (see table below). GAO Assessment of Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) Projects' Cost Estimates Characteristic TMF Project Comprehensive Well-documented Accurate Credible Department of Agriculture Specialty Crops System Modernization Minimally met Minimally met Minimally met Not met Department of Labor Data Modernization Partially met Partially met Partially met Not met U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment Collections Module Met Met Substantially met Met U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge and Case Management System Modernization Partially met Minimally met Minimally met Not met Source: GAO analysis of agency TMF cost estimate documentation as of August 31, 2021. | GAO-22-105117 Note: Evidence was provided to satisfy a given characteristic's best practices: Not met = none; minimally met = a small portion; partially met = about half; substantially met = a large portion; met = complete evidence. Given the significant expansion in available TMF funds, it is increasingly important that GSA implement GAO's prior recommendation to improve the instructions for the TMF cost estimate template required of each proposal. Such action would help ensure that the TMF board is reviewing documentation that is complete, accurate, and reliable. Why GAO Did This Study Enacted in 2017, the provisions commonly referred to as the Modernizing Government Technology Act established the TMF in recognition of the challenges in modernizing federal information systems. OMB and GSA administer the TMF, and a Technology Modernization Board comprised of federal IT executives reviews agency project proposals. Pursuant to the law, OMB's 2018 TMF guidance directed agencies with approved projects to reimburse the amounts transferred from the fund and pay a fee, within 5 years of award. Fees were to be based in part on a percentage of award amounts transferred to the agency. GSA uses TMF appropriations to cover its operating expenses, and collects the fees from awarded projects to offset these expenses. The act includes a provision for GAO to report biannually on the TMF. This second TMF report, among other things, (1) identifies the status of the fund and approved projects, (2) determines the TMF's operating costs and fees collected to offset those costs, and (3) assesses the reliability of selected projects' cost saving estimates. GAO identified projects approved for TMF funding and reviewed the extent to which selected projects were generating cost savings. GAO also reviewed OMB and GSA's administrative fund processes, and GSA financial data on TMF operating costs. In addition, GAO analyzed TMF project and supporting cost estimate documentation for the four projects awarded funds between September 2019 and August 2021 and compared its analysis to the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate.[Read More…]